User talk:Mike Christie/Archive06

Alexandrov Ensemble discography
Hi Mike. Thank you so much for that contribution; everything helps! If there is a date anywhere on the recording, that would help us a lot - either the original dates of recording, or the date of publication. It looks as if probably you've got the London 1956 and/or 1963 recordings, by the look of the tracks and soloists - but you never know. Re the spelling of Arthur Eisen/Artur Eizen: yes it tends to be Eisen on western records, but the Russians seem to be using the "z" when translating these days, so I tend to follow their lead now - perhaps I should go through the whole lot and put all the "z"s in. If I had done my job properly on that page, it would be enormous, as they've made so many records, and they're still making them. . . aaagh.--Storye book (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mike for your reply. Re recommendations for CDs of the 1956/63 recordings in EMI Abbey Road Studios, London: almost all recordings of the Ensemble under Boris Alexandrov are taken from those particular London tapes.  Ironically the 1963 recording session was only 3 hours!!!  A great achievement, bearing in mind that those are their classic recordings as far as the world outside Russia is concerned.   I have been careful to state on the Alexandrov Ensemble discography page when the recordings were made, so you should be able to find the right CDs from that page, and then find them on Amazon.co.uk or Amazon.com.  If you have any problems, please let me know.


 * However I have been sent a set of mp3s, which were digitalised from a Russian vinyl record, made from the 1963 Albert Hall concerts. In my opinion these live recordings are far superior in sound quality - perhaps because these recordings are made straight from the original tapes, and perhaps most of the 1963 studio-recording CDs are taken from inferior copies. Leonid Mikhailovich Kharitonov was of course present onstage during various live recordings of the Ensemble, and he says that the mikes were placed onstage among the performers, so no audience coughing disturbed the tapes.  I am currently uploading these mp3s to Youtube on my Riverhouse2007 channel.  Listen and see what you think.  My favourite so far is this one by soloist Polozkov here.  The next upload of that set will be Belyaev's "You are Always Beautiful" which was described by the Times critic as perfect.


 * Thank you so much for your offer of the vinyl records. I would certainly love to have them.  I have one or two rare vintage records of the Ensemble which I hope to take to Moscow and present to the Ensemble's fan club where they belong, one day.  If you would like to send me yours, I could take those to Moscow too?  I guess it would be best to wait until after the mail strike is over.  I am in Yorkshire, UK.  How should I contact you to exchange email addresses?   --Storye book (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again Mike; thank you for your reply again. I am so grateful for your kind offer of those records. Three points:
 * Please let me pay for any postage and packing; if you are sending 78s, please pack well-padded, then in a box padded within a box. 78s just do not travel well.
 * Please don't post before our postal strike is over. I and several people I know have worked as students in the UK post office, and I know what goes on.
 * Sorry I must be stupid, but I cannot find "email this user" on your userpage or discussion page; I did page searches for "email" but found nothing. Is it hidden behind another link? --Storye book (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to that map
Hi. Sorry about not getting back to you more quickly. The changes I would suggest for Munster are the following:

1) The Corcu Duibne should also be put on the peninsula to the south of where they are. They controlled both. 2) The Corcu Loígde should be put in large text, as they were the most powerful people in Munster not long before this time. 3) For that to happen, the Eóganacht Raithlind and Uí Liatháin should be moved to the right just a little. 4) The Uí Fidgenti should be moved to the right a little and the text for them made the normal large size.

The rest of the island looks good so far as I can tell. Munster is the province least understood politically.

A map which might be helpful can be found here.

Again a fine map, and sorry for the delay! DinDraithou (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wessex
Hi Mike, I have a keen interest in Wessex and possess a number of books on or around the subject. I'd like to be involved in efforts to improve the Wessex page... so let me know where I can be of assistance. James Frankcom (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hemming's Cartulary
I've put Hemming's Cartulary up for peer review, here: Peer review/Hemming's Cartulary/archive1. Comments are appreciated. (I should be picking up two works on the Cotton Library tomorrow which will hopefully give me more background on how the manuscript came into the hands of Sir R. Cotton). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ceawlin of Wessex
Hello. Just a note to point out that at this edit you accidentally deleted all the categories, interwiki links and metadata as well as the succession box. Moonraker2 (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. My own stupid fault for trying to do an edit on an iPhone.  Thank you for fixing it for me. Mike Christie (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Third Law of Robotics...
Let me know if you need help with that. I'm not a big Asimov fan, but I do have some sources, and I can get to U of I which has a complete run of Locus if needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hello, I'd like to take you up on the copy edit offer you presented at Peer review/Darius I of Persia/archive1. The article has gone through many changes since you last reviewed it. Any help you can offer to get this article to GA would be greatly appreciated. Happy New Year! Regards, warrior  4321  05:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I will try to take a look at it over the next few days. Mike Christie (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Mike Christie! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 5 of the articles that you created  are  Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current  article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) James A. Corrick -
 * 2) Tom Doherty -
 * 3) Joan Sargent -
 * 4) Harold R. Peters -
 * 5) Lan Wright -

Lovely to see...
Many thanks! Am running right now, but talk soon. :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Volney Mathison

 * Volney Mathison

Hi there Mike Christie, I hope you are doing well. I am doing some research in working to improve the article Volney Mathison - and I came across the article Amazing Stories and noticed you had improved it quite well to WP:FA quality - nice work. I was wondering if you knew of some sources that could be used at this article? Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have this:, which contains a paragraph on Volney and a description of his story in Amazing. Here's the paragraph (p.281):
 * "Mathison, Volney G. U.S. author.  Judging by this story and the author's The Radio Buster (Philadephia: Stokes, 1924), Mathison was probably a professional brass pounder (i.e. old-time telegraph operator) with some experience in Alaska and elsewhere.  Mathison also had two short pieces in Gernsback's Radio News and "The Death Bottle" in Weird Tales, March 1925.  Mathison was a prolific author elsewhere under the pseud. Dex Volney, contributing Western stories with Alaskan setting [sic, not "settings"] to Street and Smith magazines.  Apparently resident in New York at this time and connected with the Pacific Radio Co., New York City.


 * The story description is about twice this long; let me know if you'd like me to transcribe it for you.


 * I have a list of some of my sf references here; if there are other sources you'd like me to check, just let me know. Mike Christie (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, thank you very very much! It was apparently that story in Amazing that had his (initially fictional) idea for the E-meter, so yea, that would be most interesting to have as well. As for other sources to check, I am not sure which ones might have some useful discussion of Mathison, but you can take a look at what I have added to the article, so far, to see if anything jumps out as possible correlation. Thanks again, Cirt (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll do the story description this evening after work, and I'll have a look for other source -- not too optimistic there; Bleiler's the most comprehensive and he only gives him a paragraph. But we'll see. Mike Christie (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, no worries. FWIW, I added from that above-cited source, to the article, so thanks again! ;) Cirt (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, as pseudonym "Dex Volney", it appears multiple works by Mathison were selected for inclusion in a few "Best of..." compilation fiction books. Cirt (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also see this page; may not be a reliable source in our sense (I'd have to check), but you can be confident the information is accurate if you can source it elsewhere. Later -- Mike Christie (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Any chance you could get access to this somehow? :P Cirt (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no -- the materials I have access to are only those in my own collection. I also checked to see if I own that copy of Amazing Stories, and I don't, I'm afraid. Mike Christie (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, no prob. Cirt (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, no prob. Cirt (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

From the AFD: "his early work is described in the Nicholls/Clute Encyclopedia of SF as the cornerstone of SF bibliograph" - do you have the full cite for this, and the relevant text? :P Cirt (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The basic cite tag is: and the page reference is p. 134–135.  John Clute wrote the entry on Bleiler.  (I'm talking about the Bleiler entry, not an entry on Mathison; I assume that was clear?) The entry is titled "Bleiler, Everett Franklin".  Mike Christie (talk) 11:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And I promised you the other Bleiler quote; I'll do that now. Mike Christie (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Here it is.

960. THE MONGOLIAN'S RAY. Amazing Stories, June 1929. Unsigned ill. Short story. * Flim-flam. * Samuel Jones, former telegraph operator, is associated with Mazerka Magazine in a program to expose scientific hoaxes, fraudulent mediums, and similar disreputable phenomena. He has twenty-five thousand dollars per year at his disposal. He is astonished one day when a man in complete plate armor enters his office and tells a wild tale. The Asian, also called Mongolians and Tartars, have perfected a long-distance hypnotic ray for mind control, with the intention of exterminating the white race. Only heavy metal is a shield against the ray. The armored man (Count Vrennisky) and his associate Dr. Von der Vogel are in perpetual danger of assassination. * Jones, led along by circumstances, including a newspaper report of Von der Vogel's death, decides to investigate the armored man's claim; he visits the armored man's laboratory, where there is an impressive range of equipment. * When Jones meddles with it, there is an explosion, and Jones is morally bound to replace the radium that has been dissipated. As he is about to sign a check, the con is blown. A young woman, who he thought was the count's associate, is a Secret Service agent. The so-called Count Vrennisky is Arman Stressman, Radium Harry, etc., a well-known con man. The newspaper article about Von der Vogel's death had been planned, and the apparatus had been rigged to explode at the slightest touch.

I think the "Flim-flam" at the start is simply Bleiler's comment about the theme of the story. Doesn't look like anything to do with the E-meter, does it? The asterisks in the quote are apparently Bleiler's way of saving space by avoiding a new line per paragraph; I would suggest transcribing any direct quote you need without them. Mike Christie (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, forgot the relevant text for the cite about Bleiler from the Clute/Nicholls encyclopedia. Here it is: "[his Checklist] soon became recognized as the cornerstone of modern sf bibliography.  The fact that other works [...] have hugely expanded on its coverage [...] does not diminish the significance of EFB's original work.  In two further works he has himself expanded upon that work: The Guide to Supernatural Fiction (1983), solo, and Science Fiction: The Early Years (dated 1990 but 1991), with the assistance of his son, Richard Bleiler, bibliographies of the categories designated, are both annotated with an extraordinary thoroughness; they are essential reference sources for any student of the field." Mike Christie (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you have struck your "Keep" comment at the AFD. I must admit that is a bit disappointing after the research and work I have been doing on the article, though I highly respect your views and of course you may do as you wish. However I think as a whole, the sum total of the work I have done on the article and the sources added shows it merits keeping, when the individual's career as both a fiction writer, and an inventor, are considered together. I will continue to do more research on the topic. :( Cirt (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, my !vote was only based on Bleiler, and on reflection I don't think Bleiler is enough by itself, though it does contribute. I didn't !vote delete, because I haven't really reviewed the other sources.  If I get time I will do so and I may well !vote keep again.  Good luck with the article. Mike Christie (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Guyana
Mike, ages and ages ago you dropped a note to see if I knew anything about Guyana. At the time I didn't, but as it happens I know a little more now: I was there in the summer, and have done a little reading around. Is this still an interest of yours? If so, I'd be happy to help out as much as I can. (Also to some extent with the other Guianas.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For now it will have to stay a future project; I can only do one major extra-curricular thing at a time, and right now I am teaching myself Latin, since I've discovered it would be very useful on the medieval history pages (and I also just felt like it). I think that will take me at least till the summer, and till then I don't think I'll be very active in article content space.  When I get back to it I will contact you again and perhaps we could collaborate.  I did acquire two or three books but haven't gone through them yet.  So, maybe later. Mike Christie (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Quo, quo, scelesti, ruitis? aut cur dexteris aptantur enses conditi?" Ah, the benefits of a classical education.  Anyhow, v. impressive you should be teaching yourself Latin.  Give me a shout whenever on Guyana.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

List of manuscripts of Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica
Maybe you may look at the article talk page of List of manuscripts of Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica. Thanx--Diwas (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed; thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Move protection
I move protected both just now, thanks for asking. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Flag of Japan/archive2
So prose is the only issue with the article? I remember asking a few people on the Guild of Copyeditors and ran software for copyediting, but I am still not sure if there is anything content wise. I will try and fix some of the points you mentioned. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked a few more folks from WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors to see what they can do. I already told them that the lead has been done already by you. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure when the copyedit will be completed, but I asked a lot of people and got replies that it will be done shortly. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The copyediting is being done as I speak. Anything else you can think of? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mheart did the copyedit for the Japanese flag article and it was completed today. Is there anything else other than a copyedit that you need for this article? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Zscout, I'm sorry, but I can't promise to go back to the article in a reasonable time and give you the feedback, though I appreciate you giving me the opportunity. I may not review it if it returns to FAC in any case, as I am not very active as a reviewer.  If I do get some time over the next week or two, I will take a look, but I'm afraid it may not happen. Mike Christie (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if you are not able to review, with all of the changes that were done and the copyedit made, would it be ok if I bring it to FAC again? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly can't object, since I don't have time to look at it. I think you should follow your judgment. Mike Christie (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I will wait for what the other two opposers said, but I will take it back to FAC before the end of the month. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

AS King articles
Thanks for your comment. If you want to follow the style notes OK, though my own view is that what the user needs to see straight away for a monarch is the dates he reigned and where he was king of. The dates of birth and death are easily seen in the right hand infobox (if that is the right term). The infoboxes are inconsistent, and I am planning on cleaning them up next. I found a problem with Edward the Elder, as I would like to put King of Wessex, but I am not sure this would be acceptable - see my comment in the discussion. Any advice on this?Dudley Miles (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I do find infoboxes useful, and as almost all the AS king articles have them, I trust that for consistency I can insert them in the one or two which do not.

As you say that your knowledge goes up to 900, I would like to raise a point about Æthelbert. The article on him states that he had two sons, one of whom challenged Edward the Elder for the throne. This struck me as odd as one of Æthelred's sons challenged Edward. The editor cites Burke's Peerage, and I see he is correct - http://www.burkespeerage.com/articles/roking01.aspx, but the DNB article on Æthelbert does not mention any children and Stenton says that Æthelbert presumably had none. I assume I can delete this and explain my reasons in the discussion.Dudley Miles (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Galaxy 1950s issues grid.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Galaxy 1950s issues grid.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Galaxy 1960s issues grid.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Galaxy 1960s issues grid.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:MRR: many thanks and suggestion
Hey thanks so much for teaching me how to indent, so helpful! --Kylabl (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. First and foremost, many thanks indeed for volunteering to help out with the educational assignment Magical Realism Reconsidered. As always with such projects, it is of course the responsibility of the students to take the lead in editing the chosen articles, and above all to do the research and contribute reliable sources. But any help, however small, that established Wikipedians can provide, perhaps above all in guiding new users unfamiliar with the technicalities and protocols of the encyclopedia, as well (at a later stage) with copy-editing suggestions and the MOS, is very much appreciated. Please, however, feel no compunction to go above and beyond what I know is your usual generosity on the site. The project's success or failure must depend in the last analysis on the effort that the students put in. But I know that they will be extremely grateful for anything you are able to do, and indeed it is ideally part of the project that they also learn to work with people such as yourself: they are contributing to a public site, and their ability to negotiate with other editors and deal with feedback is an integral part of the exercise.

My only suggestion is that, in line with the discussion [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Magical_Realism_Reconsidered#Just_to_make_sure...|here]], you might want to indicate on the project page an article or articles that you are particularly interested in watching and helping with. Again, you should not feel you have to do this; we are pleased for you to aid the project in any way that you see fit. But it does help if a particular group working on a specific article feel that they have an experienced editor or two to whom they can turn in the first instance.

Again, many thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I may do that, if I have time to be a real help. I am so ignorant of the topics that I think I'll just wait and see who needs help the most and jump in there; my content knowledge is not going to be relevant so it doesn't matter which article it is.  (Who needs help could be the ones making the most progress just as much as the ones making the least progress, of course.)  If there's anything that you'd like to point me at in particular, let me know.  I have all the articles watchlisted, and three or four of the students.  Looks like a big class this time around! Mike Christie (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Grand. Thanks.  Yes, it's a bigger class... and bigger groups.  Some changes in approach.  We'll see!  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

THANKS SO MUCH FOR THAT :) Im really new at this. It's almost like I don't even no where to start so if I have questions I now know who to ask.. thanks a ton.--Laurarosenielsen (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mike!! yeah that's what i wanted to do. my bad. talk to you later! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tniamath (talk • contribs) 04:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Galaxy 1970s issues grid.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Galaxy 1970s issues grid.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 03:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of JPEG format
With regard to the three images mentioned above, you have used the wrong format. JPEG should be used for photographic data. Tables are better saved as PNG or SVG, or just made into tables in the article. You'll notice a significant quality improvement if you use PNG for these tables. You can see a summary of when to use what formats at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_types. Thanks. -- Jalanpalmer (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Peripatus
Just noticed your nom at FFD and wondered: is the quote on your user page is actually a reference to Peripatus? Mike Christie (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes - it's either a relatively common alternate or mis-spelling. One day I should get my namesake article in better shape ! - Peripitus (Talk) 03:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Alain Dorémieux
Sure and it's my pleasure. I recommend HotCat for adding categories, if you're uncertain of them; it can help you match what you think you want by semi-automatically suggesting something. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Review of expansion in progress, Ireland 800–1169
Hi Mike Christie (and interested talk page watchers). I'm writing on your talk page since yours was one of the few user-names I recognised at Peer_review/volunteers... I'm in the process of expanding Ireland 800–1169, and since this is my first major undertaking on English wikipedia I could really use some advice from editors before I do lots of work in vain. So I'd like to ask you: Is the a place where I ask for feedback/review on a work in progress (as I understood it the peer review is for FA-candidates, which this article certainly is not...).

Some obvious shortcomings that I am aware of in the current article:
 * 1) "First version" not even half done, only covers less than half the chronological period. Thematic topics like literature etc not covered at all.
 * 2) Prose and spelling is sadly effected by main contributor (yours truly) being Norwegian and no native speaker, extensive copy-editing would be required. (There does seem to be more competent copy-editors around than editors with knowledge/interest in Irish medieval history - so I'm having a go at it anyway...)

What I mainly could use feedback on right now, would be:
 * 1) Is this heading in the right direction, or am I wasting my time here?
 * 2) Is the use of inline citations adequate (too many?/ too few?), and are the citations in an acceptable format according to guidelines?
 * 3) Is the level of detail generally acceptable for this genre (overview over a certain historical period)?

My ambition is to reach a decent article that could be copyedited to "B-class", and without too much work improved to "Good article" by someone who knows this period and actually speaks English. Any advice much appreciated, best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I will try to take a look over the next week; I may have time around midweek, though I can't promise anything. However, I'm not very knowledgeable about Irish history.  You might ask Angus Mclellan, who is knowledgeable, and who, even if he can't help, might be able to point you at other users who would be better able to help you.  I probably won't be able to give you much feedback that is specific to the period.  Mike Christie (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've gotten a lot of help from Angus over the years, and one of the reasons I looked into Wikipedia:Peer review was not to "bother" him again at this stage... The 'someone who knows this period and actually speaks English' would most likely be Angus... ...and yes, I know he's probably having your page on his watchlist But since I left my request at your talk, I've gotten some very valuable input from a couple of other editors, which both as helped my progress and given me some confidence. I've also found some other articles using the combination of Harvard/inline citations I feared was my own invention, and I have read your essay, which made me feel less stupid for adding citations to almost everything. So there's probably others needing help more urgently, any input&advice whenever you have the time would still be much appreciated. Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you liked the essay! I will read the article anyway, since I am interested in the period and, after all, it ought to be a good way for me to learn more.  If I have comments I will leave them on the talk page; but I see that you do have some good commenters already so I won't feel too guilty if I don't get to it.  Good luck with the article. Mike Christie (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Galaxy
Art reactions are subjective, but I question "poor quality". There were effective covers by Sibley and Bonestell before Emsh. Pepso2 (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Mercia
Metabaronic (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ref fixes
ok thanks, --Kylabl (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Maiden Castle, Dorset
Hi, Mike, could you forward me a copy of the review of the above article mentioned here? I'd be interested to see what improvements were suggested. Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've requested the review and will forward it to you when I get it. Mike Christie (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Nominations viewer
I tested your monobook.js, and it works fine for me (in Google Chrome 5 on Mac OS X). If you're using the Vector skin, then you'll need to add the script to User:Mike Christie/vector.js. If you're using the Monobook skin, then please tell me your browser and operating system.  Gary King ( talk ) 19:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for Ernest Hemingway
Hi Mike. Awadewit suggested I add a family tree to Ernest Hemingway similar to hers for. She told me to ask you, so I was wondering, if and when you have a chance, whether you can turn the Family section into a graphic. I'm clueless about how to do something like this, so any help is appreciated. Don't know whether or not it's more of less difficult for a person with four marriages! Thanks. I'll watch your page for a response. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll have a go at it. Any deadline?  Might not be quick; I have a couple of other Wikipedia things on my plate.  If I don't get to it this weekend it might be a week or two. Mike Christie (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No hurry. The article still needs final tweaks, which will take a few weeks, before I'd be ready to consider a FAC run. Thank you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

External review
Would you be able to obtain Dr. David Archer's review of the Global Warming article that he provided for this article and email it to me? Cla68 (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've requested it and will forward it when I receive it. Mike Christie (talk) 12:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If possible, could you please request and email me the review of the Polio article that was provided for the First Monday article? Thank you so much!--DO11.10 (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've requested it and will forward it when I receive it. Mike Christie (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Muchas gracias--DO11.10 (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on another FA
Just would like to say well done on another interesting FA. It seems like every month or so I get to read about another English king I would otherwise never known about. Keep up the excellent work. Waygugin (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Mike Christie (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your detailed review of Bert T. Combs. Unfortunately, I was off-wiki all weekend and didn't get a chance to respond to your comments before the FAC closed. I will try to respond in the next few days. You are correct regarding why I have not used the oral history; it is a primary source and I worry about material from it being challenged as POV or being from an unreliable source. I do have access to that book in my local library, but the article was so long already I chose not to use it. Regarding the Public Papers book, I assumed this would just be a collection of papers, letters, speeches, etc. with very little exposition. That apparently is not the case. I should probably consult this source before coming back to FAC with this article. Unfortunately, I'll have to get that one on interlibrary loan.

Not sure when/if I'll get back to making another FAC run with this article. The incessant and in my opinion unwarranted concerns being raised about the images in the article are enough to make me not want to make a third run. It's obvious to me that the editor who is challenging them will not relent until I find a free image of Combs that may or may not exist. I fear this is discouraging other editors from commenting on the nomination and possibly would have derailed its promotion anyway, depending on if the closing admin thinks it is actionable. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Mercia Project change
Metabaronic has redefined the scope and changed the name of the Mercia Wikiproject to included the rest of Anglo-Saxon England, please consider directing your support again to Wikiproject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. Sadads (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Thanks for the welcome posted on my "talk" page. I've read the various links on disambiguation, but I seem to be missing something essential, that is, how precisely does one start a disambiguation page. I'm thinking about a situation in which the pages are biographical articles about people with the identical name and neither article is the "primary" one. T f m f (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply on my user page. I didn't notice it until a few minutes ago, because I was looking in the wrong place. (I kept checking your user page instead of mine.) I replied to you on my page. T f m f (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Nominations viewer comment
I might be able to do that. I am, however, very busy tonight, and will be completely offline starting on Friday for a few weeks. It would probably be more efficient to get someone who already writes bot code, such as User:Gimmetrow who runs User:GimmeBot, or User:Dr pda, who I believe has created a few scripts that specifically outputs statistics on featured content, to build this—or post a request at WT:FAC or WP:VPT. The reason is because Nominations Viewer is simply a script that analyzes WP:FAC and spits out a prettier version of existing data. New code would have to be written to do what you are asking. As a side note, one way to determine how much work a reviewer has put in a review is how many bytes of data they have added to the nomination page, which can be used to determine approximately how much text the reviewer has written.  Gary King ( talk ) 02:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay done. This script is about the same size as Nominations Viewer, so it's quite a hefty script. I hope you'll make good use of it ;)  Gary King ( talk ) 08:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I imported your vector.js into my test account, and my script works, so the problem must be related to your computer setup. The script should work in Firefox 3.6.3.  Gary King ( talk ) 17:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

My enjoyment
"I think if your enjoyment of Wikipedia relies on changing the minds of a significant number of fellow editors to agree with you (on almost any topic) you're bound to be frustrated." I think that's as plain as plain could be. My "enjoyment" has always been in the increasingly illusory idea of high quality information being freely available to everyone. Obviously though I have to recognise that "civility" is far more important than that. Will I? No, I won't. Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never run into trouble with the civility policy myself; I've never been the recipient of incivility that I can recall, other than retaliation by reverted vandals, and I've never tried to quote the civility policy at anyone. I admit to uncertainty about the policy.  I try to manage my daily interactions on Wikipedia as if everyone I talk to were a colleague at work -- one is rarely pushed to outright rudeness in the office, so it's a useful frame of reference for me.  But I also see that not everybody acts that way here.  Some value efficiency over humanity in communication, dropping templated messages on talk pages.  To me this is already falling away from natural human interaction, though I understand why people do it.  Perhaps the goals of a large enterprise are impossible to achieve unless one adopts rules that in turn require something resembling a bureaucracy.  I agree with some of the civility policy's goals -- I don't want new (or established) contributors to be driven away by belligerent behaviour, for example.  I can't be sure if we'd better off or worse off without the policy.


 * I do watch your talk page (I don't watch many) partly because I'm interested in your difficulties with this aspect of Wikipedia. I still don't know what the right answer is, though. Mike Christie (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't find it to be a difficult aspect at all. My difficulty has always been that different standards are applied to administrators and non-administrators. That needs to be addressed. Malleus Fatuorum 03:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes; I didn't mean to imply that you did. I should have said something like "conflicts". Mike Christie (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Asser - my amendments
Hi Mike,

Thank you for contacting me regarding Asser. I studied under Alfred Smyth at the University of Kent (94 - 97) and then went to Cambridge to study for an MPhil in Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic (97 - 98). The first thing Simon Keynes said to me when I went to see him was, "you must discard anything Professor Smyth told you about Asser's life!"

I corrected your release date for Smyth's book because this simply wasn't correct - I remembered that it had been out earlier, and an internet search turned up the actual release year.

The other comments are just things I know from my own personal dealings with both the University of Kent department, and also Simon Keynes at Cambridge. The story about the photograph of the book in the grate is 100% true - I remember all of the students in the department having a chuckle about that one. Regarding the note placed on the inside cover of Smyth's book in the ASNAC library, I saw that for myself, and read it! Whether it's still there or not, I don't know - perhaps somebody involved with ASNAC now would care to take a look and report back for us.

Alfred Smyth is a great scholar in his own way, but not an expert latinist and if you read the introduction to his book, you will see for yourself just how many scholars he relied upon to check out the Latin words used in Asser's life. Professors Lapidge and Keynes are both experts; indeed, Prof. Lapidge liked to boast, during my time at Cambridge, about how he has read the Latin Vulgate from cover to cover. Smyth's reliance on cobbling together bits of evidence against the Latin text was bound to draw attacks from those who simply don't agree that Asser's life is a fake. I seem to remember Prof. Keynes did actually write an academic article dispelling Prof. Smyth's arguments over certain words one by one, but again, I can't give you the reference - perhaps someone else reading this can help, or you could always email Prof. Keynes to ask him - I am quite sure he will be delighted to give you the details.

My comments about Prof. Smyth inferring there was a cover up of the truth can also be taken from the book, and were repeated in various newspaper articles at the time. I remember reading one such from a broadsheet, but I can't give the exact source because I no longer have a copy of it. The only other quote I can remember from that article, which I haven't included in my amendment to the Wikipedia page, was another academic stating that "If Asser's life was a bank note, it would have 'Bank of Bolivia' stamped on it!"

Best Regards

John Clark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayser100 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

In search of ...
Hi Mike. I'm not sure if they ever showed it your side of the pond, but the TV series In Search of the Dark Ages presented by Michael Wood in the early 80s is now available on YouTube. Apparently, someone (not me) has dusted off his/her video tapes, converted them into digital files and uploaded them for our viewing pleasure. I particularly like the bit where he uses charter bounds as a kind of map to trace ancient features of the landscape (if you care to know, it's S 417). Just thought you might enjoy it. Cavila (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hoxne Challenge
Hi Mike, Awadewit suggested you might be interested in a project we're running here at the British Museum over the next week - The Hoxne Challenge. Perhaps you'd be able to help out and sign up? Witty Lama 14:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to thank you for your thorough and thoughtful review of Hoxne Hoard. It's been very helpful. - PKM (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It was a pleasure to do, thanks to the work everyone put in; I learned a lot and am looking forward to supporting the article. Mike Christie (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you mind reviewing the Hoxne FAC and seeing if you're able to support yet? Thanks! The Land (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think I would support until either the separate list is created and the tables are moved to that list, to address the issue of undue weight; or else a convincing argument is made that that separation is not necessary. There are a couple of other unaddressed items I listed but nothing serious.  I plan to take another pass through today, to see if there's anything else I can spot, but at the moment that's my main concern. Mike Christie (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well we also had people (BabelStone, if I remember rightly) saying on the talk page that they definitely didn't think it would be an FA without the tables. Personally I don't think there is any real worry about undue weight. Given the length and detail of the article, and that fact that the theories about ownership are well-discussed, no-one reading the article is going to assume that the inscriptions are more important than in fact they are. Given that WP:UNDUE is about how we represent competing points of view, rather than how we state facts, I think its relevance to this is really only very marginal. Also I don't think there is enough material to support a separate article, at least not until someone goes back to the BM and enters the rest of the catalogue into a Wikipedia article. If we had a separate article which only consisted of two tables of inscriptions that would be far more partial and liable to misinterpretation! The Land (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but on reflection I don't think I'll oppose over this. I do think the article would be better without the lists, and the state of a subarticle doesn't matter as far as FAC is concerned, of course, so there could be no harm from that.  I will look at the article again (I was hoping to do it tonight, but it might be tomorrow) and either post further comments or switch to support.   Mike Christie (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The Land (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

New pic...
File:Staugustinescanterburyroyalgraves.jpg - some of the first fruits from my trip to Europe. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added the pic to Hlothhere's and Mul's article, didn't add it to the two FAs. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thetford hoard
Dear Mike Christie -- I have done some editing on this page, and would be enormously grateful if you would have a look and tidy up the references when you have time. I am so uncertain about how to do things; a real Wikipedia virgin. Forgive me for asking you, but you have commented on the discussion page for that article! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgTigress (talk • contribs) 20:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Potential Roman Jewellery article
Thank you very much for the information. I'd want to get the main shape of the article sorted out before actually putting it on line, so it would take a while. One would have to give thought to the illustrations, too: they need to be good, and most of the really good ones are copyright images. AgTigress (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragment
Hi Mike,

It's Tim here. Return sober or otherwise? Soberish will do for now. I expect you have the User:Marskell account watchlisted. If you could watch this new one as well, I would very much appreciate it. No more two hundred edit days but I would like to start writing FAs again -- slowly! I also vow to leave my GA bigotries aside ;). Timothymarskell (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

FAC
Thank you very much! Some of the issues related to the text such as prose, wording, grammar and spelling I will leave to Astynax. Also, I will soon nominate the articles on Emperor Pedro II of Brazil and José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco (the protegé and political "heir" of Carneiro Leão). So I hope we'll soon have some strong articles on 19th Century Brazil. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Accidental rollback?
Dabomb87 (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

NA
Thank you for looking after my new account.

As for the FA suggestion, a featured article on North America won't be possible until North America is formed. A proper definition doesn't even exist yet and trying to form one on Wikipedia will anger too many younger editors.

What we need is a tier above FA to keep older editors concerned for their best pages. We'd still need a symbol (not a star) and a colour scheme. Platinum? Violet? No video game articles allowed -- but some of the video game editors would enjoy helping craft the new process. Timothymarskell (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That said, if you would like to help North America on Wikipedia make sure to watch Canada-United States relations. Timothymarskell (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Core topics
Hi Mike, long time no talk, I continue to enjoy reading you pages - I read Melvyn Bragg's Credo about two years ago and became facinated with the period...everywhere I went I was seeing you name!

Anyway, I saw your post on Tim's talk re core topics; its something I think about too, though thoes huge subjects are so intimidating. I've been tackling Van Gogh, but the thought of an FAC on a guy like him scares the bejesus out of me. Re North America, DC Geist has beaten you to it, alas, and has been working on United States for a number of years. Its fairly exemplary. IMO FA standard. Ceoil (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words. I didn't know about Credo, but have now added it to the list I keep for when I'm at the library, and will pick it up -- it sounds interesting.  I took a look at the United States page and that is one impressive piece of work.  In fact that would make North America much easier, I would think; a big chunk of the work is already done and could simply be summarized.  I wonder if recruiting editors from the Canada and Mexico articles as well would lead to a good team for North America . . ..


 * As for van Gogh, what's holding you back? I'm not an art expert but would be happy to review the article if you like; at least I could tell you what a layman's sees in the article. Mike Christie (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I forgot about Canada and Mexico. Re Van Gogh - Mike, I might hold you to that! Ceoil (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for the reply. Note that I won't be posting to that page further. – xeno talk 23:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought about saying I wouldn't post there, but who knows; there might be something worth saying. At least I'll watch it for a bit. Thanks for posting the search link. Mike Christie (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverted your revert...
of this as those were just plain old copyedit (replacing begining of paragraph "he"'s with the name and a template fix). I'm assuming you were on the cell phone again? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hell's bells. Yes.  I may have to put a note at the top of my user page explaining this, or perhaps just have my rollback privileges revoked -- I do use them occasionally, but I could always use Undo instead.  Anyway, sorry about that. Mike Christie (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is why I'll look up stuff on Wikipedia on our iPhone, but have never and will never log in much less consider trying to edit. My stubby little fingers would screw up all the time. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and requested removal of rollbacker. I think I've rolled back accidentally more than I have deliberately, so it seems the simplest solution.  My fingers are stubbier than yours, too.  Mike Christie (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave up on rollback ages ago, and also asked that it be removed. Twinkle is far superior. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I used to use some editing tool -- I forget now what it was called. I gave that up too; it was mostly helpful for things like reverting vandals, and as I worked more on content it was just too much trouble.  I've heard good things about Twinkle but am pretty happy with the raw interface for content editing.  Are there any particular reasons you'd recommend Twinkle? Mike Christie (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Twinkle is faster than normal reverting (i.e. undo button), and it gives you the ability to use custom edit summaries (which rollback does not as a default). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It also makes it much easier to warn editors. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thurisind
Hello Mike. I hope you don't mind me dropping by, but I saw your name on the list of possible volunteers for peer reviewing and I told myself that I would be an idiot if I didn't at least see if you may be interested in peer reviewing an article I've written on the life of a 6th century Germanic king, the Gepid Thurisind. I hope to make the article a GA and maybe even a FA. If you find some time and you are interested enough to drop an assessment in the review Peer review/Thurisind/archive1 or WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Thurisind it would be great. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Great! :-) Thanks for your kindness and don't worry, take all the time you need. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

New article - Recursive science fiction
Thought you might be interested. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Recursive science fiction

Online Ambassador
Hi Mike! It'd be great to have you as part of the Online Ambassadors group. You can apply by emailing me the application questionnaire, and I'll get back to you quickly.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Interest in PPI Assessment
Hi Mike Christie, welcome to the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team. I am excited to get started, the discussion of project details will be on the [| WP:USPP/Assessment Talk page]. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for joining the PPI Assessment Team. There is a request for you to review some articles and a description of assessment logistics on the WP:USPP Assessment Page. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike Christie, thank you for assessing articles in the   Wikiproject: United States Public Policy. This project is probably different than other assessment drives you have worked on, it involves more assessment of lower ranked articles, it has input and staff from the foundation, and specific goals to improve and measure content of public policy articles. It also involves collaboration from some university classes, we are using an experimental assessment rubric, and most articles will be assessed by multiple reviewers to get a range of scores for each article. I have learned a lot from many of the  assessors comments and am really excited about the insight from this group of Wikipedians. I hope you are finding some benefits to involvement in this project. 1) your assessments are part of research that is attempting to increase credibility of Wikipedia in academic circles, 2) there is a great group of assessors involved in discussion of what is article quality and how to measure it, 3) WP:USPP is also piloting the Article Feedback tool, so if interested, those involved in assessment on the project will be asked to help improve and rate this tool as well, and 4) subject matter experts are assessing articles alongside Wikipedians and comparisons of results will provide some insight as to the rigor of Wikipedia quality rating.


 * To give you an update on assessment, about half of the assessments are complete for the first part of this first assessment. I had some trouble finding public policy experts to join us in assessing, but finally managed to recruit a group last week, hopefully some of them will join the discussion on the assessment talk page. Next week, I should have some preliminary results to share with you, I will also post the second assessment request very soon. The discussion on the talk page is very exciting, and I hope if you are interested, you will provide input on the Article Feedback Tool which is being piloted on articles in WP:USPP. Please let me know if there is anything I and the project team can do to make working on this project a more positive experience. Thanks again, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy Mike Christie's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Perhaps the best answer is "many happy returns of the day"! Mike Christie (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy Mike Christie Day! I don't know if you have any special customs in mind that we should observe, but I'll drink my next cup of coffee in your honour (it's too early for anything alcoholic). Cavila (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

PPI Assessment Update
Thanks for contributing to WP:USPP, your assessments are a part of a deeper look at assessing article quality in Wikipedia. The quality and rationality behind the assessment scores by the Wikpedians on this project is really impressive, it is an insightful and knowledgeable group. There is some information about preliminary results of assessment data on the project assessment talk page, I hope you check it out and add your thoughts. There is also an additional article assessment request for you. This assessment set will wrap up the first experiment which analyzes the consistency of the quantitative metric and compares subject matter expert assessment to Wikipedian assessment.

The second experiment will start in November and you will be asked to assess articles and also provide feedback on the Article Feedback Tool. The results of that experiment will compare your idea of article quality to the ranking from the Article Feedback Tool and your input will help improve that tool. I hope you enjoy being a part of this research, I am pretty excited about the results so far, and am looking forward to continuing to work with you on assessment. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Image question
Thanks for asking. I have mostly done image reviews at FAC where there were no fair use images, but I am glad to take a look. I know F&SF, but did not know of Venture (or at least recall it, I imagine I've read of it in passing before). I think that one fair use image of the magazine cover is fine in such arts and literature articles. I also think you can justify two, but it would be much better if there were more discussion of the art work.

I like what is already there about the artists, and how the quality of art in the second series was not as good as in the first, but the more the covers used can be specifically mentioned in the article, the better. My assumption (with the New Wave and all) is that the style of sf published changed considerably between the first series and the second. Since the style of art on the two covers also changed a lot, I imagine something could be said about the new wave and the cover art too. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

PS I am not sure if there are sources to back this kind of discussion up or not, but just looking at the older cover, the different images that make it up are fairly realistic and recognizable (woman's face, rocket ship, space suited figures, some sort of futuristic interiors - perhaps labs?). On the other hand, the newer cover seems to have some sort of monstrous hands and something that might be a spaceship between them, and maybe a volcano in the background, but it is much more abstract. When I look at the lead image, I think it could be from the late 1940s, 1950s, or early 1960s. The second cover screams late 1960s-early 1970s. As I said, I am not sure how much of this is just my OR, but if there are sources to back up anything similar / along these lines, I think that would help justify the Fair use claims. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming there is even commentary on the styles of the different artists, that might be useful. The more specifics that can tie the images into the article, the stronger the case for fair use. I have read most of the things Asimov wrote and so imagine he mentioned Venture somewhere. I even wrote him a fanboy letter once and was thrilled when he sent a postcard back. Still have it too. Saw Harlan Ellison and Kurt Vonnegut Jr. speak too, and once walked past the house of George Alec Effinger in New Orleans, but didn't want to bother him by ringing the doorbell. Just realized all but one of these are dead now. Sigh. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You have moved in more rarified cicles than I. Ellison signed a book of mine (after he read "Jeffty Is Five" aloud and was great). I met Stuart M. Kaminsky (mystery writer) once too, and got him to sign a couple of his books I had. My parents also got me a signed copy of Brighty of the Grand Canyon when I was much younger. Thus ends my brushes with literary greatness ;-) Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you have one more published story than I (I have some ideas, and have written some drafts, but never even submitted a manuscript). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:USPP thanks you!
Mike Christie, thank you for contributing to article assessment for WP:USPP. Your assessments are very appreciated, Thank YOU Thank You Thank You. There will be weekly updates about the research for this project posted here, look for the first one tomorrow. The next assessment request will come in early November. There is a lot of expertise and discussion about article quality happening in the project, so stay tuned. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Bede
Are we even still interested in him? I ask because I've got a copy of Famulus Christi sitting in front of me, and I'm wondering how much I really want to make sure I get copies of anything of use. If you've lost interest in Bede, I can't say I'm that interested either... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

 * You're welcome; and I'll be happy to help out whenever I can. As you know, I make mistakes here too, and I think good communication and sincere attempts to work with other editors can overcome almost any problems.  Thanks for the barnstar!  Mike Christie (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "I think good communication and sincere attempts to work with other editors can overcome almost any problems." - I agree with this. Thank you for pointing this out! Unfortunately, I think there is a dire lack of that, on Wikipedia. Especially in certain types of discussion processes. :( -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I am new to Wikipedia but am in a class on Urban Economic Development for which we are required to create an article as a term project. I am a second year Masters of Public Affairs student at Indiana University-Bloomington. We've been told to choose mentors, and I saw that you said you've worked with students on class projects before. Please let me know if it would be OK for you to be my mentor. Thanks for your time! Lbellows (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mike! Sorry, I should have also said my name is Laura. Our class is on Urban Economic Development, and the article my group will write will probably be within the human capital development realm...so somewhat related to education policy. We're still narrowing in on a specific program. However, my general area of interest is U.S. education policy, so I may try to work a little bit on that here outside of my class assignment.Lbellows (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mike! I'm going to have to remember to do that. We have really good campus ambassadors, which helps.Lbellows (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

How's your Online Ambassador experience going so far?
Hi ,

We're starting to get into the busy part of the semester for Online Ambassadors, and we want to check in and see how you're doing, what your opinions about where we are now, and any feedback you may have.

Please answer these questions either on my talk page or send them to me by email.

1. How many mentees are you currently working with?

2. Have you reached out to students who don't have mentors yet? If not, would you be willing to?

3. What do you think of the content of messages on the Google Group?

4. What do you think of the volume of messages on the Google Group?

5. Do you participate on the Google Group much? If not, what would make you participate more?

6. Are there any problems you've experienced so far?

7. Is there anything else Sage or the rest of the Public Policy Initiative team could do to make your experience as an Online Ambassador better?

8. Are you okay sharing your username with your answers to our Public Policy Initiative team, or would you prefer to remain anonymous?

Thanks for your feedback! --Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations !
Congrats on the close/promoted at Featured article candidates/Galaxy Science Fiction/archive1 ! Hope you are doing well. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * COngrats on the new star in the Galaxy ;-0 (cou;dn't resist). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you both! It was a long FAC but I think it's a better article for it. Mike Christie (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

students to mentor
Per recent discussions on the Ambassadors list, we're going to try out assigning mentors to some of the students that don't have one, beginning with Media, Politics & Power in the Digital Age. Would you be willing to mentor User:Colskis and User:Bacamat?

If so, please introduce yourself to each of them, perhaps along these lines:

"Hi! I'm Mike Christie, and I've been assigned as your mentor.  (If you'd rather choose your own mentor or don't want one, just let me know; you can request a different mentor from this list of Online Ambassadors.)

I'll keep an eye on your edits as you work on Wikipedia for your class, and try to pitch in where I can. If you'd like any help or advice, please let me know."

After that, don't forget to update Online Ambassadors/Mentors to list your mentees, and if you've reached your limit, move your entry down to the "additional ambassadors" section.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you up for a few more? The Political Economy of Technology and Science is looking for mentors on a per-article basis (with usually two students per article, but one mentor).  If you've not reached your limit, but, please sign up as the mentor for Unconventional oil on the course page, and leave notes introducing yourself for the two students working on it (and update the mentors page).   (I know you this would put you at six, but it's just one article so I thought that would be okay with you.)  Thanks!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and question
Hi, ! Thanks for your feedback on my first edits! I have a quick question for you - I've become interested in the Wikipedia model as a means for creating original content, specifically proposed legislation. I just launched www.writethebillwiki.com and was wondering if you have any feedback or ideas on how to get Wikipedians involved. Thanks again! Bacamat (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Bacamat

Best Buddies
Thanks for your advice on Talk:Best Buddies International. I think I will back off unless needed. Student7 (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hygeberht
Can you check over my changes and see what I've broken now? I've also copied the Famulus Christi stuff, so sooner or later we can plug into Bede again... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Next WP:USPP assessment
Hi ! Since Amy Roth's out on maternity leave, I'm pushing out the next round of assessments she needs. This time, we're comparing your assessment to readers' assessments. And instead of us assigning you articles, we're letting you pick! The full list of topics is on a subpage of the Assessment tab on our WikiProject. Please choose 10 of the articles to assess. Use the link in the section title to go to the appropriate version of the article.

Thanks for all your help! Please let me know if you have any questions! --Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: your message on my talk page -- Thanks so much, Mike! If you have time, please do keep assessing any articles that have fewer than three assessments posted. I really appreciate all your help! --Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Online Ambassador selection process
Please share you views on the current version of the proposed Online Ambassador selection process, which the steering committee has recommended for adoption by the ambassadors program. Once we settle on a selection process, we can start recruiting more Online Ambassadors for next term (in which we will have more students, and the students will be more involved with mentors from early on).--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Third WP:USPP Assessment
Hi ! Thanks so much for your help on the Public Policy Initiative assessments. I really appreciate all your help -- we'll be in great shape when Amy gets back, thanks to all of your efforts! The next round of assessments is ready for you to review. Like the previous round, please pick 10 of the articles to review from the list, and it's especially critical that you use the version I've linked to for these.

This round measures the baseline quality of articles before our students started working on them. Many of these articles have undergone drastic revision already, so it may not be useful to leave comments about them on the talk pages. We'll be asking you to review the same set of articles once students have finished them too, so please be sure you're using the links provided so you're getting the versions immediately prior to when the students made their first edits. Ideally, these assessments should be completed by December 1.

I anticipate this taking a lot less time than previous rounds, as many of these articles are quite short. If you have extra time and want to help, please go back to round two and do a few more assessments -- especially on any articles that have only one or two assessments completed. I need a minimum of three assessments for each article, and some of the articles farther down the list still need attention.

Once again, thanks so much for your help and let me know if I can clarify anything at all! --Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike Christie, thanks for your note on my talk page about the assessments. That's a very interesting observation -- I'll be sure to pass it along to Amy so she can take it into consideration when she's analyzing the data. Thanks again for all your help! --Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * This is my "Why didn't I think of that?" barnstar of choice. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Great idea Mike, and it was a pleasure to help to realise it! Geometry guy 20:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco is now a FAC
Hi, since you reviewed Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná when it was a FAC I thought you might be interested in taking a look at José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco. The article is about another 19th century Brazilian statesman and it can be considered in a certain way a follow up to the Marquis of Paraná's article. Since the Viscount of Rio Branco was the political heir of Paraná, you'll notice that the subject is similar and quite easy to follow. I'd like to see your opinion about it and whether you support or oppose its nomination as a FAC. Here is the page: Featured article candidates/José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco/archive1. Thank you very much, --Lecen (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Mike, I made comments to your remarks. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Mike, since your English is far better than my own, I'd like to ask you a favor. Could you somehow make the lead in Rio Branco's article smaller? --Lecen (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But they are 4 four very large paragraphs. I diminshed them a little bit and I believe they are fine now. I don't know if the spelling and grammar is ok, though. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Just saw that Venture Science Fiction was promoted at FAC - congratulations! Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Nice to get another notch.  What will I do when I run out of magazines and kings? Mike Christie (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Medieval bishops? Witch trials? Early computers? Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are all done, aren't they? The corpse of Ealdgyth's and my collaboration on Bede has twitched a little bit recently. Perhaps that will be next; it's not a king or a bishop. Mike Christie (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I admire those editors like you and Ealdgyth who dare to tackle the big subjects like Bede. I was never happier though than when I was away with the fairies. Takes all sorts I suppose. Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If we do tackle it, it'll be a first for me. It's so much easier to do the leaf nodes first, and once you get more than a step or two back up away from the leaf nodes the scope becomes very hard for a non-specialist to deal with. Mike Christie (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Mail call
-- Signing in order to allow this to archive: Mike Christie (talk – library) 16:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

mentees
Thanks much, Mike. I will match you up with mentees, probably this weekend or early next week. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Mike, I would be honored to have you as a mentor. I am in charge of coordinating and doing most of the posting to Wikipedia for our group's project so your help is very appreciated! Clafoutis (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Mike, myself and my group-mates have significantly updated our primary article Evergreen Cooperatives--please let me know if there are any problems with content, style, or references (or anything else). Thanks! Clafoutis (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note--I may be adding more content to the page tomorrow and Tuesday. Clafoutis (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Mike, I've made most of the necessary changes and I have a question regarding potential additions to the article. Thanks again for all of your help! Clafoutis (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Planning for next term in the Wikipedia Ambassador Program
Hi Mike. We're trying to figure out how many students we can mentor next term and how many additional Online Ambassadors will be needed. Based on the revised plan for what participating courses will be like next term, I've sketched out what will be expected of mentors. Please look that over, and then go to the online ambassadors talk page to indicate much mentoring and other ambassador activities you'd like to do next term. Thanks!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Mike :-) The peer review you made some month ago on how you dealt with Early Medieval figures on whom very few primary sources are available, and how to deal with such figures it would be advisable to create a section which discusses the nature of the sources available. I tried this for the first time with Helmichis, the Lombard killer of Alboin, that I've just brought up to peer review; if you've got any time to spare, I'd like an opinion especially regarding the first section, the one I've titled "early sources". Especially since I've nagged you already, It's fine if you don't have time, really :-) Ciao, Aldux (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Great to here you may be interested, but as I said, I would full understand. And also, you can take all your time to review it: there's no hassle and it's like I'm running for any competition ;-) Ciao,Aldux (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Frankenstein
Smells like a class assignment, no? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  02:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mike! I think many English faculty consider Wikipedia to be a social experiment for them to use as they please and not a serious reference work. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  16:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Mentor for team of students
Hi, my name is James Fullerton, and I'm a teacher at Southern Lehigh Middle School in PA. Recently I've created a project that involves Wikipedia (WP) and small groups of students making a contribution to a WP article of their choosing, as long as the topic is related to the content of the course - being American Government, Civics, and Economics. For the past 4 weeks, students have become involved in the culture of WP, with many already narrowing in on a topic for their contribution. Here is the supportive material on Wikispaces (https://wikiedit.wikispaces.com/). Your assistance would be greatly appreciated! Would you be available to act as a mentor to a small group of students as they begin to offer additional content to an article of their interest? The team sizes are numbered between 5-7 students each. I will notify you as to who is in the teams with their WP user names. Jmfullerton (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco
Mike, José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco has been promoted to Featured article. You've certainly made a wonderful review and if it wasn't for it, the article wouldn't have been improved for better as it did. Thank you very much and kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Sledd
Mike, I would be grateful if you could do a FA evaluation for the Andrew Sledd article. I've had fun building the article from a single sentence, and I'm curious to see what you think it would take to upgrade it to FA status. Sledd was an interesting guy, and he probably merits a little attention. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad to take a look. I might be able to do a pass this weekend; if not it will be some time over the Christmas break. Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

happy holidays from PPI
Thanks Mike_Christie, for all your work assessing articles with WP:USPP (and as an ambassador) over the past few months. I will have some results to report to the assessment team in January. The next semester should be pretty exciting there are over 25 university classes signed up with the project. Your input is helping to gauge how successful the project is, not just at improving the quality of public policy articles, but at incorporating Wikipedia as a teaching tool and recruiting and retaining college students as editors. we still need you in 2011, but it will mostly be assessments of student articles. Currently, there is another round of assessments to look at the improvements students made to their articles. If possible please assess by 5 January 2011; these results will be presented at an international conference later in January! Have a wonderful holiday season, all the best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Harold R. Peters
Hello, I was about to start an AfD discussion for Harold R. Peters, an article that you created four years ago. Currently it is an unsourced BLP, I haven't been able to find any sources and don't find him to be notable. I figured that I would bring it up with you first though. Happy Holidays J04n(talk page) 16:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's a reasonable AfD. He's not listed in the Clute/Nicholls Encyclopedia of SF, which lists some of the more prominent sf bibliographers, and I can't find any other sources either.  I created that article fairly early in my time here, and I don't think I would create it now. Mike Christie (talk – library) 17:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic fonts
-- Signing so this will archive. Mike Christie (talk – library) 16:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Neologism
Re: this post, I think it is clear from the AfD that the material won't be merged into any other article no matter where the request is made. Also, the merge to Savage Love essentially has already taken place and the text has been spun out to a stand alone article. That is/can be true for any other merge target. On the other hand, I think that most people would be motivated to rename the article to at least change the title to revise "neologism" from the name (as being offensive to Wikipedians). I think Political impact of "santorum" coinage captures the topic. Maybe give it a month or two for things to cool down before putting the matter through another process. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a complicated situation. I think you're right to say a delay is sensible; I think an RfC is probably the best way to go, if I can summon the energy to start one.  There are a lot of interrelated issues here -- BLP, no censorship, notability, political activism, correct naming, dab page structure.  I might ask for other opinions informally from some other Wikipedians. Mike Christie (talk – library) 15:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead rewritten → read request
Hi Mike, I've rewritten and significantly expanded the lead at New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009. Would you mind reviewing that for me and leaving your comments at the FAC? Thanks in advance.  upstate NYer  18:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviews
Mike: Thanks for all your reviews at FAC. They are much appreciated. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  17:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome; I wish I had time to do more. Mike Christie (talk – library) 19:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Rollback back?
My recollection (which I think I've confirmed through User:Dabomb87's talk archives and User talk:Mike Christie/Archive06 and your logs) is that you gave up rollbacker because of the problem of accidental iPhone rollbacks. I've suffered from the same issue too, but then saw someone say that the solution was to add .page-Special_Watchlist .mw-rollback-link {display:none;} to User:Mike Christie/monobook.css, which removes the "rollback" option from your watchlist. I've done this and never looked back! If you'd like rollback back, let me know. Regards, BencherliteTalk 23:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting idea, but I found I used rollback from the watchlist occasionally -- I would preview something with popups and then roll it back. I was thinking of creating User:Mike Christie on an iPhone, which I've seen at least one other user do, and then getting rollback back on this account.  I might do that.  Thanks for the note, though.  Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. You could of course copy the plain text of your watchlist from your main account to your new account, which would at least give you something to get started with. BencherliteTalk 14:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes; I've done that and it helps. Thanks for giving me back the rights! Mike Christie (talk – library) 21:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that link - very handy indeed. BencherliteTalk 11:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hygeberht
Heh. I finally got around to those last comments... so he's ready for another look. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Only remaining thing I can think of is that the lead could probably be two paras; the article is long enough to justify it. Looks good -- PR next or FAC? Mike Christie (talk – library) 18:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure, honestly. Probably beg Malleus for a copyedit (and add to the lead) and then FAC, quite honestly. I've got a few archived peer reviews to do, and I think Hygie's pretty comprehensible on his own... Besides, I've got Bede digging to do... (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Show preview
Your ongoing rewrite of Bede is dominating its history. Please use the "Show preview" button below the edit window after each of your changes. Do not use the "Save page" button until you have completed your rewrite. — Joe Kress (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's perfectly ok to make lots of individual edits rather than fewer big ones. People have their own way of editing and should do whatever works for them. Nev1 (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I generally prefer smaller chunks with better edit summaries. Makes it easier to review what's been done, rather than a complete huge text dump. But, as Nev said, different strokes for different folks. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Joe, I do use preview, but the work I'm doing now involves pulling out information from multiple sources and identifying where in the article it can most usefully go. If you look at the individual edits you'll see many of them are reasonably sized; it would be far more difficult for to try to accumulate those edits into one -- I'd risk losing some of that material.  The advice to editors to use preview is simply to make sure they're aware they can avoid pointlessly clogging up the history; that they can check for errors first.  It isn't a suggestion that they try to limit the number of edits.  I do use preview, but I make mistakes, as you can see in the edit history; that's not a problem, I feel. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Fantastic fonts.jpg
I hope you do not mind my boldness here. Feel free to revert or request for changes if this version does not suit your taste. Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mind at all; thanks for working on it. I'm in two minds about whether it's an improvement, but since the issue has already been raised at the FAC, I will post a note there under the existing thread. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Startling Stories 1953 May cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Startling Stories 1953 May cover.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Stark Raving Dad
Hello, you opposed the previous FAC for Stark Raving Dad. I have re-nominated the article at FAC and it appears to be heading for a pass, but I didn't think it was right for that happen without you having a chance to voice your opinion. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  20:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you be willing to do another review?
Okay, Mike. In the aftermath of your critique of the "Andrew Sledd" article, I am now a confirmed fan of your editorial work. The Sledd article is a much better article as a result of your comments and suggestions, and I believe that we have advanced the ball toward the FA goal line. It's not ready yet for FAC review, but with added material from additional sources, I believe that it might be ready soon. I can't thank you enough.

Would you be willing to do another pre-FAC review of a different article for me? Specifically, the "John J. Tigert" article? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No rush on the Tigert review; I know a good thing when I see it, and I've enjoyed working with you and I'm excited about the product the collaboration is generating. I've still got a couple of weeks of follow-up reading at the Candler library to finish Sledd for FAC, and I finally received a used copy of the 550-page authorized bio of John Tigert.  So, really, no rush, but please put Tigert on your "back-order" list.  Thanks for everything.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

PPI Research Update
First, thanks Mike_Christie, I am in awe of the work the assessment team did for this project. The results from the quantitative metric assessments were amazing, really. Check out what your work shows about Wikipedia article quality - I think it’s exciting, but you’ve probably figured out by now that I’m a bit of a nerd. A summary is posted on the Assessment page and a report will be on the Outreach wiki.

Second, I wanted to ask if you haven’t done many assessments on the Student post articles, to please do a couple; articles toward the bottom have only 1 or none assessments. I know some of the material is pretty dry, but this assessment is the most important one for the fall semester and this assessment will be the primary method of showing article quality to the project grant funder. So please do a couple if you possibly can. HUGE Thanks and get ready for Spring semester - ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Planet Stories grid
Hi, Mike. An interesting problem. First, one correction: The vertical immediately to the left of "Winter" should disappear, yes? On to the matter at hand:


 * (1) Bold certainly strikes me as too strong.
 * (2) Underlining wouldn't necessarily be too strong, I think, but would it look cramped against the bottom box line?

Other possibilities I considered, the first two in addition to italics:


 * (3) Removing the verticals immediately to either side of the quarterly color fields and pulling the color out to cover three months. Failed for multiple reasons.
 * (4) Simply removing the verticals to either side of the quarterly color fields. Too subtle? Conceptually weak, because we couldn't do that to the right of the color fields positioned in the December column?
 * (5) Placing marks on either side of the numbers, possibilities including (with or without italics): -3/6-, *3/6*, <3/6>, ~3/6~. Conceptually pulls the number out to both sides, which is good, but is this too far from the elegant base design concept of the grid? Would it look cramped horizontally in cases where the issue number was double-digit? (The hyphens, I think, are small enough that there wouldn't be a problem.)
 * (6) Placing an asterisk to the right of the number (with or without italics): 3/6*. Without being able to mock it up myself, this strikes me as the most plausible, but may just be too visually busy.

So, this is what I'd say: It's probably worth taking a look at underlining again. And at hyphens (or other) on both sides/asterisk to the right, with and without italics. But, if none of those strike you as improving the effect of the grid, I wouldn't worry about it more. There's certainly nothing wrong with simply using the italics. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Kentucky Governors GT
Thanks for your nice comments regarding my work on the Kentucky Governors GT. It's been fun working on it, if for no other reason than to see the "you're a dork" reactions from my friends and family when I tell them what I'm working on. I always appreciate folks who will give my articles a review, as they don't draw near as much attention as the pop culture stuff. Not sure if I'll ever get the topic to FT status due to the amount of work, the birth of my first child, and the sheer length of time it takes to get an article promoted to FA, but look for at least a few more KY governor articles as candidates to move from GA to FA in the next few months. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Gods...
de Lacy... gods. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you complaining about? It's got a picture of a charter and a citation to the ODNB; what more do you want? Mike Christie (talk – library) 12:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just found that the same user responsible for de Lacy, also added a lot of copyrighted material to the article on Clitheroe Castle around the same time. If it happened once... Nev1 (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Indentations

 * Signing so this will archive. Mike Christie (talk – library) 18:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 28 January 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Congrats
Congratulations on your latest FA! Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have a couple more pulps up my sleeve; I've just nominated Planet Stories, and Fantastic Adventures is probably next after that.  I hope people don't get sick of them! Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A vs an
I think you missed the footnote, which uses the word 'historical' as an example where 'a' is used. That was in the 1999 OED and is in my 2003 edition also. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, I missed the footnote -- thanks for catching that. Perhaps that note should be promoted up to the main text of the article? Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea, do you want to do it? I'm rather busy. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will try to find time this weekend. Mike Christie (talk – library) 22:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentor note
Thanks, and just fyi, I am going to start a new page for my project titled Bicycle Helmet Laws. Suzanne10 (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye out for it. Mike Christie (talk – library) 22:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 13 February 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

LRH
Thanks very much for your kind offer. I may well have a need for your expertise. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentor Program
Hi, would you be interested in being my mentor for a wikipedia project? I am currently enrolled in the MPA prgram through WCU and very knew to wikipedia.Suzanne10 (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks

Thanks, I have no idea what IRC is just so you know. I am considering doing bicycle helmet laws as my project just so you are aware. Suzanne10 (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello my name is Deena Patton and I am doing a class project/ Wikipedia article in regards to Brownfield Regulation and Development. I am in need of a mentor and wanted to know if you would be interested. Thanks. Dnpatton (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Talia and I wanted to know if you would be interested in being my mentor. My other mentor I requested said he already had too many mentorees... so I am looking for a replacement. Suzanne10 said you were awesome! Please let me know if you would be interested. My username is Trovb5 and I am doing my project on Texting and Driving laws. Thanks! Trovb5 (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentor note
Hi, I wanted to let you know that I am going to put a few paragraphs in my sandox. These are in regards to my article and just me getting started. I have no idea how to creat a page for this article, could you assist me in this process? ThxSuzanne10 (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all your help. I have tested out the bibliography page so if you would provide feedback that would be great. Also I cannot quite figure out how to add a photo. I was thinking of adding a photo of just a bicycle lying on the pavement that has been crashed. Again thanks for all your help. Suzanne10 (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, lol! I am still learning. I deleted the two previous ones becuase I figured a few things out. Didn't know they would still show up. Thanks for the heads up. Have fun with your daughter.Suzanne10 (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Planet Stories copyedit
Sorry I didn't get back to the FAC sooner, I got so wrapped up in my own articles that I forgot I started reviewing it. I think I spotted all remaining issue with the prose, I hope it helps. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem at all; I'm just glad to get the review. I'll look at your notes this evening.  Thanks! Mike Christie (talk – library) 22:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentor request
Hello, my name is Talia and I am in Dr. Coopers Public Policy class at WCU. My other mentor said he already had too many mentorees, so I was wondering if you would take my page on and be my mentor! I am doing Texting and Driving and am in the process now of citing my references. I will try not to be too high maintenance. Please let me know if you are interested. Thanks! Trovb5 (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring students: be sure to check in on them
This message is going out to all of the Online Ambassadors who are, or will be, serving as mentors this term.

Hi there! This is just a friendly reminder to check in on what your mentees are doing. If they've started making edits, take a look and help them out or do some example fixes for them, if they need it. And if they are doing good, let them know it!

If you aren't mentoring anyone yet, it looks like you will be soon; at least one large class is asking us to assign mentors for them, and students in a number of others haven't yet gotten to asking ambassadors to be their mentors, but may soon. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks really good, thanks. I think with the map I do not need an addition photograph, what do you think. Maybe under another section it would look okay but I like the map being at the top of the page. Can I still work on the article if I move it out from my sandbox? It still needs work! Thanks againSuzanne10 (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Lets move it on Wednesday and I like the title. I may try to work on it a little tonight. Thanks Suzanne10 (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Graphic_Lab/Map_workshop
I've completed your map request. Please let me know if you'd like any changes made. Best, Makeemlighter (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

New Mentoree
Mike, Thank you for agreeing to be my mentor! I apologize for being slow to get back with you, I have put other assignments and studying as a priority over this project until now. After our midterm today, I am going to buckle down and make some progress on my page. Thanks again. Can you look over what I have so far in my sandbox and see what you think? It is a rough, rough, rough, rough draft! I am just learning how to reference within a site. Today we have to move our page to the main wiki site. Can I still move mine even though its a rough draft? Thanks, Talia Trovb5 (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

mentor response
Mike, I left a message for you and Geniac on my page. I would like for you to be my mentor if you agree to do so. I really appreciate your help and have heard great things! Also, I have messaged Geniac as well- Geniac was a great mentor, and this decision was nothing personal. Sorry for the confusion! Trovb5 (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's cool with me; there are always more students needing help! :) --Geniac (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. I like the hook that you mentioned and think that will work just fine. Suzanne10 (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC) Sorry I am a little unclear, are you talking about adding a new quote. I do not see one in my article that states just that but the NCDOT, Divsion of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Safety and Education says. "Bicyle helmets reduce the risk of head injury by as much as 85% and the risk of brain injury by as much as 88%" So I am assuming I would just add Despite the fact that...quote....there are still states out there that do not have a helmet law. I am on the right track here? Suzanne10 (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a little over my head- I dont understand exactly what this is, but Richards quote seemed fine to me! Thanks!Suzanne10 (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Mike, Thanks so much for your comments and looking at my page! I really appreciate your input. I am at work now, but I wanted to let you know I got your message and will get back to you and answer some of your questions in more depth later today or tommorow when I get to the library to work on this more. Thanks again. Trovb5 (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks MikeSuzanne10 (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

mentor response
Thanks again! Im sorry I havent got back to you on your suggestions, I am planning on working on it more this week since we dont have class. I just dont want you to think im ignoring you! TaliaTrovb5 (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Public Policy Initiative Recruiting Assessors for Spring
Hi Mike, Your work assessing article quality is really valuable and generated some excellent results from fall semester. I thought your input on the ambassador list was extremely valuable too! The assessment process has been streamlined and dates are clearly posted for the upcoming assessment rounds. The Initiative has a lot more classes signed up for spring, so I would like to recruit some more Wikipedian assessors, and I was hoping you could help with that. I think community members would be more likely to participate if they are recruited by Wikipedians like yourself who have a good reputation. The strategy that worked last semester was to leave an individual message on the talk pages of non-adversarial Wikipedians. I looked for people by contributions to public policy related articles and those active on the 1.0 Editorial Team. I usually mentioned in the message what specifically about their work history made me think they would be a good assessment team participant. This is super time consuming to contact like 50 people, but only doing a few is not so bad. Also, I am looking for feedback about assessing with PPI, so please check out the discussion on the assessment tab, and let me know there if you have a chance to recruit some other assessors. I hope you are looking forward to another great semester working on this project. Drop me a line - ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard
Hello,

You recently commented on Featured article candidates/L. Ron Hubbard/archive2 concerning the length of the L. Ron Hubbard article. I have reduced it by about 20% to 82 kB (13,353 words) of readable prose text. Please take a look - it would be helpful if you could say on the FAC page whether you feel that this satisfies your concerns. Helatrobus (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer review/Donald Duck and the Mummy's Ring/archive1
Hi Mike Christie! It looks like You are interested in comics, and a good article reviewer. So I was wondering if You would be able to take a look at the above mentioned PR and make some comments. It really needs another look by someone who knows more about the "rules" on WP than myself, and You seems to be the perfect one to do that. My comments were not so well received but I really think the article (and the other articles that User:SingToMePlease are creating) needs to be better researched and expanded to be GA, there are much more information out there. It would also be very useful, I think, if a more experienced user could do a review now before he/she creates more articles, to avoid unnecessary cleanup in the future. If You don't have time, I understand. Thanks! Iusethis (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Iusethis; I think you must be confusing me with another user -- as far as I recall I've never worked on any comics articles and don't know much about them, so I don't think I'm the right person to do the review. Good luck in finding a reviewer -- sorry I can't help. 12:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Marking articles students are working on
Howdy, Online Ambassador!

This is a quick message to all the ambassadors about marking and tracking which articles students are working on. For the classes working with the ambassador program, please look over any articles being worked on by students (in particular, any ones you are mentoring, but others who don't have mentors as well) and do these things:


 * 1) Add  to the articles' talk pages.  (The other parameters of the WAP assignment template are helpful, so please add them as well, but the term = Spring 2011 one is most important.)
 * 2) If the article is related to United States public policy, make sure the article the WikiProject banner is on the talk page: WikiProject United States Public Policy
 * 3) Add Category:Article Feedback Pilot (a hidden category) to the article itself.  The second phase of the Article Feedback Tool project has started, and this time we're trying to include all of the articles students are working on. Please test out the Article Feedback Tool, as well.  The new version just deployed, so any bug reports or feedback will be appreciated by the tech team working on it.

And of course, don't forget to check in on the students, give them constructive feedback, praise them for positive contributions, award them The WikiPen if they are doing excellent work, and so on. And if you haven't done so, make sure any students you are mentoring are listed on your mentor profile.

Thanks! --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Famulus ...
I can't remember if I asked/checked to see if it got to you? So... did it? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It did -- thanks! Looks very useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 21 March 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy FAC
I'm sorry, I didn't see the note, just a bunch of FAC comments in the wrong namespace so I though it was an error. To deal with the clutter issue, sometimes resolved comments are moved to the archive during the FAC process but that's pretty rare. Thanks for your comments! Kirk (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! It's a great article, and I'm glad to see it's getting lots of supports. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Condensing comments
Hi! I noticed that lately, you've been placing commentary on FAC talk pages as a way to streamline those discussions. I was hoping you'd have some insights for this discussion on the role of nominators in moving/collapsing reviewer commentary. --Gyrobo (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Assessment with WP:USPP is the ultimate!
hi Mike_Christie, A new assessment round is posted. This round is mostly starts and stubs, so evaluation should be really quick. WP:USPP Assessment 2.1 The Public Policy Initiative is super exciting this term. The topics are really interesting this term and the student's are producing some really good quality content. Recent numbers indicate that our project is actually contributing a significant amount of content to Wikipedia. There is a group of about 20 subject matter experts who are assessing, but the Wikipedians are so consistent, that I really need your scores to measure article quality. On another note, are you going to Wikimania? I am looking for people to co-present with, I would really like to have one or two people who were both on the assessment team and ambassadors, your input could be great, so let me know if you are interested! Best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

mentor
Hello! How are you? Just dropping a note to say hi and I havent forgot about you or my project! I have taken my break and am ready to get back at it. Ill drop you a message when I begin to work on it again. Thanks again for all your help and being my mentor. Trovb5 (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mike, what about re-titling my article and going back and focusing on the US. I like that suggestion and to be quite frank that was my primary focus anyway. He turned it into a world wide. I suppose I should have titled it better, not sure. Thanks again for your help.72.250.240.54 (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Suzanne10 (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I am having problems with posting a picture on my article page, well sandbox page. I've looked at the wiki help page, but I am still not having any luck. Also, I have added more items to the article and will continue to do so in the days ahead. I would love your feedback. thanks Dnpatton (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations
Just saw the fantastic news ;-) Congrats! Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And thanks for the review and support.  I'm about to nominate Unknown -- yet another pulp launched in 1939.  I think this is the last of those for a while though; I've got Science Fantasy lined up after that.  Thanks again! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I will take a look at it in a few days - thanks. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course I didn't mean to imply that I wanted you to review it, but if you do I'll be grateful for the feedback. I don't think I've reviewed one of yours recently. I mostly review from the "Older nominations" sections, and I pick ones that have few supports, so that I can try to push them to either archive or promote, so perhaps that's why -- are your nominations getting dealt with fairly quickly?  Anyway, if you'd like a review of one of your articles just drop me a note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I like reading your sf magazine articles and am glad to review them. I have been in a bit of a dry spell lately - have not nominated anything at FAC in about 6 months. I have a lot of articles I know I could get to that level, but have been busy and not very focused when I have been online. I am working on a couple of covered bridges (very slowly). Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm delighted you enjoy them; thank you. If you do have something you'd like me to take a look at, please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

and now I see Unknown (magazine) is a FA too - keep up the great work! Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

People need to stop writing about Bede....
Bother! Will try to track it down. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 22 April 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

In my quest to find ever more obscure topics to force upon the poor FAC reviewers...
Could you look over Richard Barre? Yeah, I know, a proto-lawyer... but ... still, he's interesting in his interactions with folks. Definitely a behind-the-throne type of guy. I'm still mulling Bede... of course, I've been mulling Bede for ages. Heck, I did a cleanup job on Becket the other day and ordered some books on him... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look -- might be a week or two; a family member is having elective surgery this weekend so my spare time is going to disappear for a while. As for Bede, do we need to inveigle another co-editor?  Deacon, Angus, Cavila, someone else?  Would that get us going? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No hurry, I'm on the road this weekend. I'm not sure what might get us moving. Deacon's pretty scarce lately as are Angus and Cavila. Not quirky enough for Malleus. I hope to have some time to read up while I'm on the road this weekend. The real problem is no one has written a good biography of Bede lately. Everything is either "pop-history" or "old" or "journal articles/monographs"... which makes things hard. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

RE:Lara Croft FAC
I have no intention of going for FA again. However, I would certainly appreciate further suggestions from you. Please feel free to edit the article or post on the talk page at your leisure. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC))

New Assessment for article improvements with PPI
hi Mike_Christie, Another assessment round is posted. This round is the follow-up to the previous assessment, so it should reflect some big improvements to the articles. WP:USPP Post Assessment 2.1 There is a group of about 25 subject matter experts who are assessing, and last week I sent them a tutorial video on how to leave comments on talk pages. So if you see any newcomers on the discussion pages, please help me welcome them. You are doing a really amazing job, in fact, here at WMF, we are using your ratings as the “gold standard” to test the Article Feedback Tool and see how well it works. I will be presenting lots of research in the coming months. Thank You! Best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ScienceFantasyLayouts.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:ScienceFantasyLayouts.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 08:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Dashes
Sorry, I looked at the article after commenting; if I had seen you already had uses for and [], I would have suggested something else. Perhaps {}?

But unspacing will probably work; if you will consider heresy, you might even use a hyphen for "December 1967-January 1968", as a stronger bond.

Glad to help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)